18 ms·

> Voting and democracy should not become a device to placate the dissatisfied masses into silence, make them lineup for ballot, to choose a lesser evil who, in

> Voting and democracy should not become a device to placate the dissatisfied masses into silence, make them lineup for ballot, to choose a lesser evil who, in most likelihood, will turn out to be a egotistical power-seeker. What else should you expect when people are limited to only two political parties? It could be worse with only one political party.

Avicebron 6y ago
I'm not sure we just need more political parties, yes it would be nice. But we really need to work on disentangling how deep economic anti-humanist incentives and policy have embedded themselves within both parties.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  But with a 2-party system, how do you do that? As a Canadian, I've seen disaffected factions of our major parties splinter off and create viable alternatives. Often they don't get elected, but they attract enough votes to make the mainstream left/right party take notice and move in their direction.
Press2forEN 6y ago
I think the real problem is that those two political parties represent factions of the population with incompatible values. We don't need more political parties, we need solutions to manage the incompatibility.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  There was nothing incompatible about our values regarding what we saw in that video. The idea that there was a political divide about this incident is a myth. Even the openly racist people I know were saying it was fucked up.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Even the police unions condemned it. It's literally the only thing we agree on, but certain people keep holding up this obviously false dichotomy that we can only care about this political violence or the Floyd murder.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Well, the Minneapolis police union president has just gone off the rails.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      They don’t have any choice once it is filmed. They weren’t condemning all the misconduct by the same officer that wasn’t filmed.
  - Press2forEN 6y ago
    No, but there is a predictable political divide about the fallout.
    - spaginal 6y ago
      Everyone has pretty much universally agreed that what the officers did was unacceptable. Even other Police. The officer was arrested, why things didn't move sooner was a local matter to take up with that mayor and that department. It should have been handled locally, not all departments are the same. But you end up in a situation of further tragedy where people start destroying property and assaulting others, and they screwed up by doing so. The message has been diluted, lost in all the noise. Expanding it nationwide hasn't broadcast the message positively. It's juvenile and short sighted, the people are on their side, saying yes this was wrong, yes this has to stop, murder is unacceptable, etc. They are now looking at the situation with a different viewpoint, asking themselves if the police violence may be justified with this group, look at what they did to our community when WE AGREED with them and were willing to help. That isn't a political thought, that is a rational thought. Destroying communities, rioting, looting, killing people, it never brings more people into your corner. America is a civil society that respects law and order. Much of America now is just happy they don't have to live around anywhere where this is happening, that is going to be the only takeaway from this tragedy now. The chorus on social media doesn't reflect that. The riots turned average Americans against this event. A barrier, metaphorically, was quickly slammed up between people, and now it's just noise and chaos.
- sidibe 6y ago
  I wonder if things would be better if there was some mandatory thing like jury duty where you had to go meet and hang out for an hour with a different randomly picked person every a month at some center where they'd have something for you to do so it's not 100% awkward. I realize that's a terrible idea, but not sure of any way of changing people's attitudes towards each other when they'd rather stick to their little groups and believe the worst about everyone else.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    My co-worker who once worked in an Amazon fulfillment center, said that it was the most diverse place in terms of groups represented that he had ever worked. Conversely he said it was the most segregated environment he had ever been in, with different groups strictly regulating their interaction with other groups, say at lunch, to what they were required to do by work. I know it's anecdota, but I still don't know where I can square this information with the interactions and conversations we are having today. Maybe one-on-one interactions are the way to go, no group tribalism going on.
  - Press2forEN 6y ago
    I tend to think people's attitudes come from too much diversity rather than too little. The most diverse places I've ever been are also the most visibly segregated and racially aware (but not in a good way). Meanwhile, I see the most tolerance for others in homogeneous places. I wonder if this is borne out in any studies.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - senderista 6y ago
      I've observed that racial stereotypes seem to be borne out more often than not in the urban environments I've lived in, because minorities there tend to be disproportionately poor and uneducated. So I share your skepticism that "diversity" per se is the answer to prejudice. Canada for example is much more white on the whole compared to the US, and far more tolerant on the whole. Ditto with Scandinavia etc.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  I think labeling the two sides as fundamentally incompatible is a real danger and quite possible a symptom of the two parties and not it's cause. I see enough similarity between the actions of both parties (maybe not as much their rhetoric) that I think if there is incompatibility, there is a deeper reason for it then "muh beliefs".
- austincheney 6y ago
  I disagree. I have never voted along party lines. I know there are stupid and insecure people who feel the need for echo chambers, like minded social groups, and other diversity destroying functions. That isn’t me or most people I know. The more institutions gravitate towards factionalism, populism, or consolidation the less I trust them. I don’t need political parties to represent me. I am fully capable of forming my own opinions. I only need political parties to represent a diverse candidate pool and put pressure on other political parties.
syshum 6y ago
>>It could be worse with only one political party. Well I hate to break it to you, most of the protests, and police abuse seem to originate in major cities that have largely been controlled by a single political party for longer than most people have been alive...

Avicebron 6y ago

I'm not sure we just need more political parties, yes it would be nice. But we really need to work on disentangling how deep economic anti-humanist incentives and policy have embedded themselves within both parties.

AlexandrB 6y ago
But with a 2-party system, how do you do that? As a Canadian, I've seen disaffected factions of our major parties splinter off and create viable alternatives. Often they don't get elected, but they attract enough votes to make the mainstream left/right party take notice and move in their direction.

Press2forEN 6y ago

I think the real problem is that those two political parties represent factions of the population with incompatible values. We don't need more political parties, we need solutions to manage the incompatibility.

Consultant32452 6y ago
There was nothing incompatible about our values regarding what we saw in that video. The idea that there was a political divide about this incident is a myth. Even the openly racist people I know were saying it was fucked up.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Even the police unions condemned it. It's literally the only thing we agree on, but certain people keep holding up this obviously false dichotomy that we can only care about this political violence or the Floyd murder.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Well, the Minneapolis police union president has just gone off the rails.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    They don’t have any choice once it is filmed. They weren’t condemning all the misconduct by the same officer that wasn’t filmed.
- Press2forEN 6y ago
  No, but there is a predictable political divide about the fallout.
  - spaginal 6y ago
    Everyone has pretty much universally agreed that what the officers did was unacceptable. Even other Police. The officer was arrested, why things didn't move sooner was a local matter to take up with that mayor and that department. It should have been handled locally, not all departments are the same. But you end up in a situation of further tragedy where people start destroying property and assaulting others, and they screwed up by doing so. The message has been diluted, lost in all the noise. Expanding it nationwide hasn't broadcast the message positively. It's juvenile and short sighted, the people are on their side, saying yes this was wrong, yes this has to stop, murder is unacceptable, etc. They are now looking at the situation with a different viewpoint, asking themselves if the police violence may be justified with this group, look at what they did to our community when WE AGREED with them and were willing to help. That isn't a political thought, that is a rational thought. Destroying communities, rioting, looting, killing people, it never brings more people into your corner. America is a civil society that respects law and order. Much of America now is just happy they don't have to live around anywhere where this is happening, that is going to be the only takeaway from this tragedy now. The chorus on social media doesn't reflect that. The riots turned average Americans against this event. A barrier, metaphorically, was quickly slammed up between people, and now it's just noise and chaos.
sidibe 6y ago
I wonder if things would be better if there was some mandatory thing like jury duty where you had to go meet and hang out for an hour with a different randomly picked person every a month at some center where they'd have something for you to do so it's not 100% awkward. I realize that's a terrible idea, but not sure of any way of changing people's attitudes towards each other when they'd rather stick to their little groups and believe the worst about everyone else.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  My co-worker who once worked in an Amazon fulfillment center, said that it was the most diverse place in terms of groups represented that he had ever worked. Conversely he said it was the most segregated environment he had ever been in, with different groups strictly regulating their interaction with other groups, say at lunch, to what they were required to do by work. I know it's anecdota, but I still don't know where I can square this information with the interactions and conversations we are having today. Maybe one-on-one interactions are the way to go, no group tribalism going on.
- Press2forEN 6y ago
  I tend to think people's attitudes come from too much diversity rather than too little. The most diverse places I've ever been are also the most visibly segregated and racially aware (but not in a good way). Meanwhile, I see the most tolerance for others in homogeneous places. I wonder if this is borne out in any studies.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - senderista 6y ago
    I've observed that racial stereotypes seem to be borne out more often than not in the urban environments I've lived in, because minorities there tend to be disproportionately poor and uneducated. So I share your skepticism that "diversity" per se is the answer to prejudice. Canada for example is much more white on the whole compared to the US, and far more tolerant on the whole. Ditto with Scandinavia etc.
Avicebron 6y ago
I think labeling the two sides as fundamentally incompatible is a real danger and quite possible a symptom of the two parties and not it's cause. I see enough similarity between the actions of both parties (maybe not as much their rhetoric) that I think if there is incompatibility, there is a deeper reason for it then "muh beliefs".
austincheney 6y ago
I disagree. I have never voted along party lines. I know there are stupid and insecure people who feel the need for echo chambers, like minded social groups, and other diversity destroying functions. That isn’t me or most people I know. The more institutions gravitate towards factionalism, populism, or consolidation the less I trust them. I don’t need political parties to represent me. I am fully capable of forming my own opinions. I only need political parties to represent a diverse candidate pool and put pressure on other political parties.

syshum 6y ago

>>It could be worse with only one political party. Well I hate to break it to you, most of the protests, and police abuse seem to originate in major cities that have largely been controlled by a single political party for longer than most people have been alive...